<p>Thanks =D</p>
<p>But agreement on these boards is unprecedented. I don't know what to do with myself now.</p>
<p>Let's argue about something else. :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then again, if you look at this process as a whole, some of it just comes down to probability and luck. Is there anything absolute at all in this process? Is there anything that is completely controlled by the student in which there are no external factors involved?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course there is luck and cannot be completely controlled by the student. Harvard could fill its class many times over just based on near-perfect grades and scores. You will always be judged against that year's pool of people, and you have no control over who they are. Example: Just your bad luck, everyone else applying from your area also plays the violin and plans to major in economics, while the folklore department is desperate for students and the only topnotch bassoonist in the orchestra is graduating.</p>
<p>I think people are putting too much emphasis on this idea that adcoms make their decisions based on character. Beyond looking for people whose backgrounds and interests will round out a class, I think what they look for is evidence of genuine intellectual spark and curiosity, which are not measured by the SAT or necessarily reflected even in a high gpa. If I were running an admissions office, I would pay no attention to the writing portion of the SAT and very little to the application essays which these days are practically churned out by committee, but I would require each student to submit at least two papers representing what that student considers his or her best academic work, copies that include the teacher's comments. And, I would include some faculty in the undergrad admissions process who would take a look at those papers. I believe Cornell does this.</p>
<p>derrick, my question re the hypothetical study can be rephrased, what if there were a bunch of studies together strikingly showing that XYZ race were inferior in intelligence? Again, whilst SAT does correlate with income and education and coaching and test prep the very fact that there are wide variances in scores among the wealthy and well prepped suggest other factors at work of which IQ is a big one. In holistic admissions ECs Ok, but they should be weighted less than academics (and as you correctly say academics are indeed weighted heavily). I believe the essays should be thrown out since who knows who writes them. I would like to see some slight weight to alumni interviews. Not everyone makes to committee, and it is not the worst alone who get weeded out by the first readers. Individual biases can weed out others as well. It would be better for some auto admit parameters, based on scores, then the admits are debated in committee.</p>
<p>sac, that works for me, have the student turn in actual graded papers. Have faculty sit in, like they do at Caltech.</p>
<p>
[quote]
derrick, my question re the hypothetical study can be rephrased, what if there were a bunch of studies together strikingly showing that XYZ race were inferior in intelligence?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is no biological basis for race:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 101, pp 569-570, 1996</p>
<p>PREAMBLE
As scientists who study human evolution and variation, we believe that we have an obligation to share with other scientists and the general public our current understanding of the structure of human variation from a biological perspective. Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination. The expression of prejudice may or may not undermine material well-being, but it does involve the mistreatment of people and thus it often is psychologically distressing and socially damaging. Scientists should try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends.</p>
<p>POSITION
We offer the following points as revisions of the 1964 UNESCO statement on race:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent. Although there are differences of opinion regarding how and where different human groups diverged or fused to form new ones from a common ancestral group, all living populations in each of the earth's geographic areas have evolved from that ancestral group over the same amount of time. Much of the biological variation among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any biological barriers to mating between members of different populations.</p></li>
<li><p>Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.</p></li>
<li><p>There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.</p></li>
<li><p>There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.</p></li>
<li><p>For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors. These include natural selection, promoting adaptation of the population to the environment; mutations, involving modifications in genetic material; admixture, leading to genetic exchange between local populations, and randomly changing frequencies of genetic characteristics from one generation to another. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.</p></li>
<li><p>The human species has a past rich in migration, in territorial expansions, and in contractions. As a consequence, we are adapted to many of the earth's environments in general, but to none in particular. For many millennia, human progress in any field has been based on culture and not on genetic improvement.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction have been social and cultural, not biological. The global process of urbanization, coupled with intercontinental migrations, has the potential to reduce the differences among all human populations.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations for specific human purposes.</p></li>
<li><p>The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications. Therefore, no biological justification exists for restricting intermarriage between persons of different racial classifications.</p></li>
<li><p>There is no necessary concordance between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select each other as mates, with the result that there is often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of physical traits on the one hand and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the other. But there is no causal linkage between these physical and behavioral traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritance.</p></li>
<li><p>Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.
[/quote]
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Dissent? Sweet.</p>
<p>"Now we go back to square one, and the question of whether an overall image is more important than strictly intelligence." (Scratch intelligence, how about academics?) </p>
<p>Ramaswami earlier mentioned that he thinks that Caltech is a better model for colelges, since it operates almost exclusively based on test scores and gpa. I disagree. A Math and Science school like Caltech is almost homogeneous in that it has similarly scoring students, with similar interests, and similar backgrounds. That detracts from the atmosphere and diversity of the school. I myself am a firm advocate of diversity in any institution- there's comes a point when you learn less from your professors and more from your peers. That's why I feel that academics and SATs should be considered only a relative benchmark for students from different backgrounds, but intangibles like EC leadership and achievements should be the final sifter in the college admissions process.</p>
<p>Edit: It seems that I'm a little late in posting, but the issue needs to be discussed.</p>
<p>
"Now we go back to square one, and the question of whether an overall image is more important than strictly intelligence." (Scratch intelligence, how about academics?)</p>
<p>Ramaswami earlier mentioned that he thinks that Caltech is a better model for colelges, since it operates almost exclusively based on test scores and gpa. I disagree. A Math and Science school like Caltech is almost homogeneous in that it has similarly scoring students, with similar interests, and similar backgrounds. That detracts from the atmosphere and diversity of the school. I myself am a firm advocate of diversity in any institution- there's comes a point when you learn less from your professors and more from your peers. That's why I feel that academics and SATs should be considered only a relative benchmark for students from different backgrounds, but intangibles like EC leadership and achievements should be the final sifter in the college admissions process.
</p>
<p>You should not make that assumption.</p>
<p>It's not an assumption so much as an opinion. And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that the students are math and science. A school of all social studies students or music students can be equally homogeneous. I realize and willfully submit that it's a topic that will get absolutely nowhere if debated. So I'd really like to stay away from it.</p>
<p>I'd like to turn the focus to former part of the statement, concerning if any changes should be made to how much weight each section of an application receives under the status quo.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not an assumption so much as an opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was not presented as an opinion. ;) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement is already true - academics and standardized testing are the preliminary qualifications in the admissions process. You have stated this before - </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That, however, is not the issue. ;) The problem is if "intelligence" alone [which is supposedly determined by academics and standardized testing] can be a more reliable indicator of success when compared to personal characteristics and leadership qualities [determined by essays, recommendations, and the interview], and, as ramaswami argues, if intelligence itself is an indicator of leadership qualities.</p>
<p>Everyone has their points, and we all disagree, but rama - maybe you can understand numbers.</p>
<p>(numbers are from earlier in the thread, pg. 9 or 10 I believe)
The average SAT score of Whites: 1063
The average SAT score of blacks: 857</p>
<p>Blacks adopted by whites apparently have scores 20% above the average(and you accepted that as the SES portion ...). 857 x 1.2 = 1028.4</p>
<p>The average score of blacks with somewhat more equal conditions: 1028.4.</p>
<p>AND people who are adopted generally have lower scores, as they are generally not from the more stable and intelligent families. So that new 35 point separation should be small, much smaller. If anything, blacks are smarter after adjusting for these things.</p>
<p>So maybe whites are the people who are less intelligent.</p>
<p>Well I tried to avoid that nasty little issue, and you got me.</p>
<p>The problem is that there's really no way to determine what is the best indicator : we have schools that admit based almost solely on academics, yet we don't have a school (to my knowledge) that admits almost based solely on essays, recs, interviews, etc. Simply put, there's no easy way to isolate the variables. That's why I think that both should be considered, but academics should only be given a slight preference. </p>
<p>With that put out there, there are studies that compare personal demonstrated characteristics (extroversion, confidence, "emotional intelligence") versus IQ in predicting. Happiness and overall success. I know that these studies show a strong correlation between strong, social personalities and happiness, but as for success (based on income), I'll have to look that up. Or maybe you meant academic success, in which case obviously academic success in high school is the best predictor of success in college. But as we both know, colleges are looking for more than who will succeed in school, they want to see who will go above and beyond outside of school.</p>
<p>DSC: nice points, I like the points that affirm the points that the ethnicities are equal. But as far as whites being smarter than blacks or vice versa, let's not go there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's why I think that both should be considered, but academics should only be given a slight preference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why so? Does the weight of academics in the admissions process put anyone at a disadvantage? Note that students are evaluated according to the opportunities they have. I would presume that colleges would recognize that an economically disadvantaged student would have relatively less opportunities to flourish academically [this, of course, includes the SAT]. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But as we both know, colleges are looking for more than who will succeed in school, they want to see who will go above and beyond outside of school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which implies that the person has succeeded. Unless, of course, you want to call him ub3r-successful. ;)</p>
<hr>
<p>
[quote]
But as far as whites being smarter than blacks or vice versa, let's not go there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed. Did anyone read post #166? :D</p>
<p>Academics on a relative scale, of course. Someone who grew up as an orphan needs to be viewed differently from someone who had a stable life with many opportunities. I only say that academics should be given slight preference because it makes things a hell of a lot easier for admissions officers- imagine if Harvard had to interview 20,000 applicants, read all their essays, and vote on all of them as a committee. </p>
<p>"Which implies that the person has succeeded."</p>
<p>I don't get it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I only say that academics should be given slight preference because it makes things a hell of a lot easier for admissions officers- imagine if Harvard had to interview 20,000 applicants, read all their essays, and vote on all of them as a committee.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I see. </p>
<p>If a person "go[es] above and beyond outside of school", then the person is successful, unless I misinterpreted your statement. I'm assuming that you mean the person not only takes advantage of all the opportunities available, but also has the initiative to create new opportunities that will benefit both himself and the community as a whole - to go "beyond".</p>
<p>"If a person "go[es] above and beyond outside of school", then the person is successful, unless I misinterpreted your statement. I'm assuming that you mean the person not only takes advantage of all the opportunities available, but also has the initiative to create new opportunities that will benefit both himself and the community as a whole - to go "beyond"."</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>I know that the comparison was pointless in terms of actuality - regarding the blacks smarter than whites. I was more going with the point directly contridicting his own, as my own opinion lies around the general 'everyone is about the same' area. He certainly doesn't believe that whites are dumber than blacks, so by saying something that he might find idiotic, he might realize his own statement's lack of validity.</p>
<p>Obviously that didn't get across though, so, whatever.</p>
<p>derrick, I mentioned Caltech as a template of a college that uses one kind of excellence as the measure, as an example of a purist place. This is not my ideal model. obviously, it has its flaws. Chaos theory, there is no biological basis for race may be better stated as, currently we believe etc etc.
The zeitgeist acknowledges genetic influences on a lot of things but not on intelligence merely because it is politically incorrect.
Yes, I do understand numbers, don't be sarcastic, the studies showing narrow insig differences are dwarfed by those showing large differences and both kinds are dwarfed by poor controls, sample size, research design, etc.</p>
<p>When all of you cite studies, you invariably cite conclusions, discussions, all the editorializing. Please examine the research design, and how the study controls for dependent and indep variables, sample size, etc. In this area, proclamations on either side are political.</p>
<p>derrick: "With that put out there, there are studies that compare personal demonstrated characteristics (extroversion, confidence, "emotional intelligence") versus IQ in predicting. Happiness and overall success. I know that these studies show a strong correlation between strong, social personalities and happiness, but as for success (based on income), I'll have to look that up. "</p>
<p>This is part of the problem. Weighting the interview favors the extrovert. And also, it's not always so simple as saying extroverts have social skills while introverts don't. Often, introverts get along better with introverts than they do with extroverts and vice versa. It's kind of an oil and water thing.</p>
<p>Also, although introverts may write a great essay, if it's about their personality an extrovert may not like it.</p>
<p>I know a psychologist, and she said that introverts are often told that there is something wrong with them by extroverts. </p>
<p>But honestly, most often the hardcore scientists are more introverted than extroverted. It's an advantage to want to think at length by yourself. Except for jobs like as a salesman or a spokesman, being an extrovert is not really an advantage. As someone who is somewhat introverted, I know I would hate going door-to-door to sell something.</p>
<p>I'm not sure about the "strong, social personalities" and happiness correlation. You would have to define what a strong, social personality means. Introverts may require less personal relationships with people, but they may be deeper. Also, I don't have the study because I read it 10 years ago, but I read that the most successful people are slightly unhappy. (They've got something driving them to do better.)</p>
<p>Also, please don't generalize and say that introverts can't network. There are many ways to network--an easy way is to become completely outstanding at what you do. And being social has nothing to do with public speaking or anything like that. I know I was always quite vocal, just moreso in professional settings rather than social ones.</p>
<p>""If a person "go[es] above and beyond outside of school", then the person is successful, unless I misinterpreted your statement. I'm assuming that you mean the person not only takes advantage of all the opportunities available, but also has the initiative to create new opportunities that will benefit both himself and the community as a whole - to go "beyond"."</p>
<p>Exactly."</p>
<p>The problem with this statement is that a student with top-end academic talent may want to spend the vast majority of their time refining that talent. At the high school/college age, unless they are going to coast, they need to spend a lot of time doing that. I think one way to discern whether a student is likely to contribute in the future is to look at their standards for their academic work. Do they write superficial essays, or do they make them absolutely rigorous? What type of standards do they have for their work.</p>
<p>I was heavily involved in student life after the drinking death at my college, and there really was no way to predict this by looking at my high school activities. I had shown some initiative, spending about 100 hours volunteering in my community (but only during the summer) and initiating a program for one of them, and also had one year of student government, but nothing major. Even though I was going to be a scientist, I was the sort of student who would sit there and agonize for literally hours about one sentence for an essay and then erase it. After years of this, I became an excellent writer and got an english rec that said I was the best writer she had ever seen. What excited me in high school was to aspire toward intellectual greatness in every field. And also, I've found that verbal reasoning has helped not only in writing, but also in the reasoning itself in science and math. It's my opinion that in a subject like group theory people who are largely non-verbal can't do it even though they may ace basic physics and calculus. </p>
<p>The disappointing part is that people have this misconception that beyond a certain point intellect doesn't help you. I've talked to Harvard Medical School students and many are convinced that the type of intellect that it takes to do complex mathematics like real analysis doesn't help you at all in biology. They're wrong. While you don't need to know mathematics, the same nuanced thinking that enables one to do this high-level mathematics makes you a better thinker in biology. Similarly, a guy who writes a really powerful, <em>insightful</em> essay on Nietzsche is more likely to recognize as a doctor that their patient may have something going on with them beyond just what the basic tests are indicating. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, all these characterstics will get you labeled as "boring" by some people.</p>